State ex rel. Parker v. Court of Common Pleas

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Parker v. Court of Common Pleas

402 N.E.2d 508, 61 Ohio St. 2d 351, 15 Ohio Op. 3d 435, 1980 Ohio LEXIS 670

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 26, 1980

DocketNo. 79-1347

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 402 N.E.2d 508 (State ex rel. Parker v. Court of Common Pleas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Parker v. Court of Common Pleas, 402 N.E.2d 508, 61 Ohio St. 2d 351, 15 Ohio Op. 3d 435, 1980 Ohio LEXIS 670 (Ohio 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Prohibition will not issue against respondent prosecuting attorney since he is not seeking to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power. See State, ex rel. Lehmann, v. Cmich (1970), 23 Ohio St. 2d 11, for the conditions which must exist to support the issuance of a writ of prohibition.

Disposition relative to respondent Court of Common Pleas is governed by our recent decisions in State, ex rel. Adler, v. Court (1980), 61 Ohio St. 2d 1, and State, ex rel. Wall, v. Grossman (1980), 61 Ohio St. 2d 4. Here, as in those cases, respondent court has jurisdiction to hear the pending case sought to be prohibited. As we stated in Adler, at page 3, “[t]he action of respondent in denying relator’s motion to dismiss the indictment, even assuming, arguendo, that it may be erroneous, does not constitute the unauthorized usurpation of judicial power.” Relator has an adequate remedy at law by way of appeal.

For reason of the foregoing, the judgment of the Court of Appeals dismissing the complaint in prohibition is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Celebrezze, C. J., Herbert, W. Brown, P. Brown, Sweeney, Locher and Holmes, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Prohibition will not issue against respondent prosecuting attorney since he is not seeking to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power. See State, ex rel. Lehmann, v. Cmich (1970), 23 Ohio St. 2d 11, for the conditions which must exist to support the issuance of a writ of prohibition.

Disposition relative to respondent Court of Common Pleas is governed by our recent decisions in State, ex rel. Adler, v. Court (1980), 61 Ohio St. 2d 1, and State, ex rel. Wall, v. Grossman (1980), 61 Ohio St. 2d 4. Here, as in those cases, respondent court has jurisdiction to hear the pending case sought to be prohibited. As we stated in Adler, at page 3, “[t]he action of respondent in denying relator’s motion to dismiss the indictment, even assuming, arguendo, that it may be erroneous, does not constitute the unauthorized usurpation of judicial power.” Relator has an adequate remedy at law by way of appeal.

For reason of the foregoing, the judgment of the Court of Appeals dismissing the complaint in prohibition is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Celebrezze, C. J., Herbert, W. Brown, P. Brown, Sweeney, Locher and Holmes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

402 N.E.2d 508, 61 Ohio St. 2d 351, 15 Ohio Op. 3d 435, 1980 Ohio LEXIS 670, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-parker-v-court-of-common-pleas-ohio-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack